Such a weird formulation: to acknowledge what’s happening is needed and right, but too much and too fast? When has any government ever done anything good that was “too much, too fast?” Is that real?
Isn’t the actual danger the opposite formulation — “too little, too late?”
Isn’t the actual danger the opposite formulation — “too little, too late?”
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1394009921335738373
Trying to think of all history’s warning lessons of civilizations that failed because they adapted to changing realities and addressed systemic problems too efficiently and completely.
“Too much too fast” for ... whom?
“Slower and less” for what reason? To whose benefit? Towards what goals? It never seems to be specified. It almost—almost—seems like a nonsense phrase, designed to stop progress, camouflaged as prudence.
“Slower and less” for what reason? To whose benefit? Towards what goals? It never seems to be specified. It almost—almost—seems like a nonsense phrase, designed to stop progress, camouflaged as prudence.
It’s of a piece with the strange pragmatism that equates accepting unacceptable things with maturity, with being the practical adults among idealistic children.
As if it’s not the primary role of adults to be idealistic about the future world they might build for their children.
As if it’s not the primary role of adults to be idealistic about the future world they might build for their children.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
